Rob Sanchez, owner of the Melting Pot fondue restaurant in San Mateo’s downtown transit center, had certain images in mind when city planners told him they’d be putting up some display cases on the outside of his building.

“I figured it would be stuff about current events, the Martin Luther King train, what’s going on in the city, maybe some historical pictures,” Sanchez said.

He was wholly unprepared for the vision that met his eyes when he went out to see what they’d come up with: cartoonish drawings of bald, naked, childlike figures, some in compromising positions, interspersed with dogs, rats, fleas, corporate logos and cryptic messages sprinkled with profanity.

“I thought, ‘Well that’s different,’ ” Sanchez said. “I called up one of the gals from the city and said, ‘Hey, you might want to come down here and check this out.’ ”

The call set off a series of events and arguments that left city officials flummoxed and two artists fuming, with one considering a lawsuit. The situation has stirred up questions about censorship and drawn attention to the city’s lack of an oversight mechanism for its nascent public art program.

Exactly what happened and why varies depending on whom you ask. What’s clear is that the city asked a professional artist to take down two of her works, and when she refused, officials from several departments struggled with whether to remove them anyway or let them stand.

In the end, the city decided not to censor any individual works, but to take down the whole exhibit next month and replace it with announcements and advertisements.

City officials say that was the plan all along. But the way the process unfolded left the exhibit’s curator — local arts advocate Sinem Banna — convinced that her voice and that of the artist had been unfairly squelched.

“They used us like puppets, telling us ‘Now put up an artwork — Now take it down’,” said Banna, a board member of the nonprofit City Arts of San Mateo. “I’m so upset that I’m not sure if I would consider ever working with the city again.”

Banna’s censorship radar was already on high alert after the city removed a piece from an exhibit she curated at City Hall in May. The work by Brazilian photographer Vera Costa included a close-up shot of an exposed female breast.

City Attorney Shawn Mason said the city had a contract with the artist that explicitly allowed it to remove any works deemed inappropriate.

“We want to provide an opportunity for art to be displayed for the benefit of the community, but we also have to recognize that City Hall is not an art gallery,” Mason said. “It’s not a place people go with the specific intention of seeing art displayed and the knowledge that they might be seeing things that are controversial.”

Shortly after the work was removed, Banna was informed by the city that they would no longer require her services as a curator in City Hall.

Mason said the dismissal was nothing personal: Deputy City Manager Susan Loftus had simply decided it would be best to have the works reviewed as part of the same process as the art displayed at the Main Library.

To Banna, however, it felt like punishment for selecting art that pushed the envelope. So when she got a call from a city planner a week or so later about taking down two works at the transit center because they included cartoonish depictions of nudity, she was livid.

“They said since it’s a public space the art shouldn’t have any sexual or heavily political artistic elements, and we were aware of that,” Banna said. “But these are cartoon-like drawings of tiny figures. What, are we going to say now that you can only display landscapes? Are we only going to display flowers and butterflies?”

The artist, Bakersfield College professor Ruth Santee, was equally surprised.

“I’ve never had an issue like this before,” she said. “My work doesn’t have a sexual content. As an artist, rarely do I put clothes on people. I think it’s a great equalizer, because it’s not about race or culture or economic status when you’re nude.”

Though she didn’t want to fully deconstruct the works, Santee explained that the disputed drawings, titled “East” and “West,” were meant to evoke differing cultural sensibilities. She found it ironic that they instead sparked calls for censorship, she said.

After conferring with Santee, Banna informed Julia Yeh, a city associate planner, that the two artists had decided to take a stand. Santee would not take down the works because, in her words, “When you censor one piece of art, it’s like you’re censoring all art.”

Besides, Santee had been told her work could stay on display until Sept. 26, and she had no plans to visit the Bay Area before then.

Yeh went out to view the art and discussed with other officials the possibility of the city removing it. But it soon came to light that Banna had never given Santee a contract like the ones required for work to be displayed at City Hall. That put the city on shakier legal ground.

Mason, the city attorney, said he huddled with the planning officials on Wednesday about how to approach the issue. They made a joint decision that the two works of art could stay until July, at which time the entire exhibit would be replaced with advertisements for the city’s downtown.

Yeh said that was actually the city’s plan from the start. The promotional posters weren’t ready yet when the display cases were first installed, so the city turned to Banna and asked if she would be interested in putting up some art in the meantime.

But Banna said a different planning official, Miriam Clifford, told her the art space would be permanent. Not only had she booked Santee through September, she had lined up other artists for three-month rotations through February 2009.

Yeh said there must have been a misunderstanding.

Regardless, Banna is convinced the city would have gone ahead and removed Santee’s works on Wednesday if she hadn’t first contacted MediaNews with her concerns about censorship.

From the city’s perspective, the incident reinforces the need to create a sanctioned, independent arts commission.

The city included plans for such a body when it first launched its public art program two years ago, said Bob Beyer, community development director. The program created fees for developers of major projects to pay for art works in public spaces, and the commission was to serve as the arbiter of the proposed works.

Forming the commission was not considered urgent, however.

“We wanted to give some time for the money (from the fees) to accumulate so the committee would have something to do,” Beyer said. He plans to approach the City Council about the issue this summer, with the goal of having the commission up and running by September.

Before the latest dust-up, Banna likely would have been a shoo-in for a post on the commission. Now she’s not sure if the city would want her or if she would want to be involved with the city.

Meanwhile, Santee has contacted California Lawyers for the Arts, a nonprofit that offers conflict resolution and attorney referrals for artists. She said she’ll consider suing the city if it takes down her work in July without her permission.

“I think this goes beyond my artwork, and it goes beyond Sinem’s position” in the city, Santee said. “This is really about standing up for free speech.”

Free speech is important, agreed Mason, but that doesn’t mean the city can’t set standards for what’s acceptable to display in public spaces.

“What we really need,” he said, “is a more carefully thought-out and formal program for resolving these kinds of issues.”